It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife

page: 9
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


Einstein said:
The field is the sole governing agency of the particle.

Any ideas on what he meant by that statement?




posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   

edit on 18-11-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Eryiedes
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


The man says I should read what I posted and doesn't even know what I am referring to?


It seems you make assumptions.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   

undo
you know it's really rude of you two to just banter back and forth and not answer anyone else's comments or respond to them


The claim/theory is - 'consciousness is the direct result of matter'.



edit on 18-11-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Itisnowagain

undo
you know it's really rude of you two to just banter back and forth and not answer anyone else's comments or respond to them


How hard is it to back up and find what the claim (theory) made was?

Itisnowagain
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


So - who says that 'consciousness is a direct result of matter'?
Is it just you?


'consciousness is the direct result of matter'.



but that's not a theory. that's a statement without any evidence. then he posted the link and ran away and at that point, the question was answered. he's ignoring quantum physics, or most of it, anyway. i want to know why he thinks quantum physics is wrong. imagine my surprise to find people who adore science saying some science is not valid, even though it's backed up by mathematics. that's weird.
edit on 18-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   

undo

Itisnowagain

undo
you know it's really rude of you two to just banter back and forth and not answer anyone else's comments or respond to them


How hard is it to back up and find what the claim (theory) made was?

Itisnowagain
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


So - who says that 'consciousness is a direct result of matter'?
Is it just you?




but that's not a theory. that's a statement without any evidence. then he posted the link and ran away and at that point, the question was answered. he's ignoring quantum physics, or most of it, anyway. i want to know why he thinks quantum physics is wrong.

I know - it is just a statement without evidence. The fact that there is conflict, ridicule and assumptions tells me that 'peace' is just a theory there too.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


i made an edit to my last post, and would enjoy a response from you. here it is:

imagine my surprise to find people who adore science saying some science is not valid, even though it's backed up by mathematics. that's weird.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Eryiedes

tsingtao
how do you know they aren't somewhere else?
watching you from on high.


We know because conciousness is a direct result of matter and once you're buried, you're not on high watching anything...you're 6' under being turned into worm food.

-Peace-

You assume that when the body dies that is the end. But it is just an assumption because it has not yet happened where you are -the truth is you cannot possibly know.
You obviously believe that you are the body and that is a fearsome state.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   

undo
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


i made an edit to my last post, and would enjoy a response from you. here it is:

imagine my surprise to find people who adore science saying some science is not valid, even though it's backed up by mathematics. that's weird.

Science is looking for what?

One thing is for sure they will never find death because it can only be imagined in life.
There is only this to dissect.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   

undo
imagine my surprise to find people who adore science saying some science is not valid, even though it's backed up by mathematics. that's weird.
Why is that weird?

We now know that Newton's science isn't completely valid, and we still use it, not because it's valid, but because it's useful. What's wrong with that? You can use Einstein's more complicated equations which we now know to be more valid, but it's a lot of extra work and in most cases the answer isn't much different, with some exceptions of course, but we have a good idea of what those exceptions are so we know when to use the more valid science.

Also with the self-correcting nature of science and the fact that it has historically corrected itself numerous times, the obvious implication was that it was wrong before those corrections. Far from being something to dislike about science, it's one of the things we love about it...it's able to admit it was wrong in the light of compelling evidence and make a correction, which is something religions are never able to do.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
This that is here right here and now is what there is - can it be prized apart?
What is it made of?

A seer and the seen (scene).
Can the seer be seen? Or is there just scenery?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Not at all sir.
I was not running in "defeat" as you tried to put it.
I was preventing myself from ad-hom attacks against the individual in question.
It was courtesy for the thread's integrity...not defeat.
While Quantum Mechanics may one day prove conciousness in a different way, that day isn't today. Neurochemistry however does have a few facts on the subject and some facts are better than just a theory.
But you are free to interpret things however you wish.

-Peace-


edit on 18-11-2013 by Eryiedes because: Typo



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Arbitrageur
Far from being something to dislike about science, it's one of the things we love about it...it's able to admit it was wrong in the light of compelling evidence and make a correction, which is something religions are never able to do.

Science is only what is believed to be true at this time.

God is what all beliefs appear in.

God is ever present and never changes - things (beliefs) come and go in it.

It will always be this and this will always appear different.
This is eternally the same and different.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


Instead of feeling the need to attack can you tell me what you think Einstein meant when he said:
The field is the sole governing agency of the particle.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Eryiedes
reply to post by undo
 


Not at all sir.
I was not running in "defeat" as you tried to put it.
I was preventing myself from ad-hom attacks against the individual in question.
It was courtesy for the thread's integrity...not defeat.
While Quantum Mechanics may one day explain conciousness in a different way, that day isn't today. Neurochemistry however does have a few facts on the subject and some facts are better than just a theory.
But you are free to interpret things however you wish.

-Peace-



well the way i was viewing the neurochemical part was that whatever molecular/atomic/sub-atomic events take place in a recording device that stores data, also seem to take place in the human brain, and as a result, both of these things collapse the wave function as they record and store the data. in effect, we create 3d reality from quantum mush with our brains. if everything that can record and store data, manifests three dimensionality, otherwise it's just a wave of probabilities, that's saying alot. what does it mean?

i think you're stuck in a loop that says, "this can't be that because this is this", when the conversation is more along the lines of "this is that and this" . you're saying "that" isn't allowed in the conversation but i don't see why not. it's there, it interacts and is part of the event, so why pretend it isn't there or has no bearing on the event?


edit on 18-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


what part of einstein's theories as regards quantum physics, were wrong?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   

undo
you're saying "that" isn't allowed in the conversation but i don't see why not. it's there, it interacts and is part of the event, so why pretend it isn't there or has no bearing on the event?


You want to use it in the conversation...go ahead...more power to you.
As long as you admit what you are saying is still a theory and not a fact.
What I will not do is jump on every explanation that comes my way like a drowning man clings to a life preserver. If that makes me "loop" as you describe, then so be it, I can live with that but I refuse to live my life based on theories.

-Peace-
edit on 18-11-2013 by Eryiedes because: Typo



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   

undo
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


what part of einstein's theories as regards quantum physics, were wrong?


I can't speak to what A was refering to but here's a list of his 23 biggest mistakes:

discovermagazine.com...

They're towards the end of the list.

-Peace-
edit on 18-11-2013 by Eryiedes because: Typo

edit on 18-11-2013 by Eryiedes because: Added Sentiment



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Eryiedes

undo
you're saying "that" isn't allowed in the conversation but i don't see why not. it's there, it interacts and is part of the event, so why pretend it isn't there or has no bearing on the event?


You want to use it in the conversation...go ahead...more power to you.
As long as you admit what you are saying is still a theory and not a fact.
What I will not do is jump on every explanation that comes my way like a drowning man clings to a life preserver. If that makes me "loop" as you describe, then so be it, I can live with that but I refuse to live my life based on theories.

-Peace-
edit on 18-11-2013 by Eryiedes because: Typo


did you know that most of what is found in a dig site, is thrown away as contamination and is never dated? this is because at one time, the layers of the dig were identified on the geological time chart, and the assumption was made that items in layer 4 would not be in layer 2, therefore, if layer 4 items show up in layer 2, it's contamination and out it goes. stick with me a bit longer, this is important

some civs were using copper, while others were using stone. some were using bronze, while others were using wood. some were using iron, while others were using copper and all of these things were happening in the timeline, at the same time. this is completely ignored in digs. if a copper tool is found in a layer thought to be stone age, it's regarded as contamination. the rationale given for these abrupt and unverified results, is that they don't have enough manpower or money, to date every item that comes out of a dig. so if they can visually identify it as an out of place artifact, they toss it. that is not science.


edit on 18-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


What is your interpretation of:
The field is the sole governing agency of the particle. Einstein.




top topics



 
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join